America is a Liberal Nation

It seems to be common knowledge that the United States is a pretty conservative country, relative to other industrialized countries like Germany, France, or Canada. The recent electoral triumph for the Republican Party would back this up, as they have never seen an expansion of government they approved of or a tax increase they liked (unless proposed by a Republican administration).

Polling numbers seem to bear this out as well, with more Americans reporting that they are "conservative" over "liberal" or "moderate" (in fact, the Republican Party has a super-majority of members who say they are conservative, compared to the Democrats who are split mostly between "moderates" and "liberals"). This is actually an increase from previous years, and since moderate voters tended to go for the Republicans in the midterms, it would make sense to claim that America is a conservative country.

Except it's not.



The extension of the Bush tax cuts, as vehemently advocated by the Republican party, would seem to confirm that Americans favor the right-wing economic view of "trickle-down" economics. Except they don't. The vast majority of Americans want taxes raised on the rich, with even a majority of self-identified Republicans expressing disapproval of the GOP tax plan.

Over 70% want abortion to remain legal.

65% wants the government to protect them from terrorism, but not at the expense of their civil liberties.

50% compared to 43% want the protection of the environment given precedence over economic priorities, even in the middle of a monumental financial crisis.

Majorities and Super-majorities support a variety of LGBT rights' issues.

59% support stem-cell research.

Most Americans want the wealthy to help fund Social Security - a cherished support system for the majority of Americans.

A majority of Americans oppose cuts to education, social security, and other social spending to help reduce the deficit.

A super-majority of Americans want less corporate influence.

Most Americans support the new Health Care Law, either approving of it as it currently is or wanting it to be more expansive (diametrically opposed to the GOP call to repeal the law).

In stark contrast to the Republicans, Americans overwhelmingly favor extending unemployment benefits during the economic crisis.

Contrary to what the Tea Party and the Republican Party says, Americans don't want smaller government, necessarily, but rather more efficient government. This means most support social programs like Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, and welfare but have a decidedly unfavorable view of how well Congress functions.

How is it that on almost every issue, majorities of Americans favor what would be called the center-left or liberal position, yet only 20% or so call themselves liberals? Why does the political landscape not reflect this in Congress?

Much of the failure of the U.S. government to do its job in a more efficient manner is because of the increasingly-polarized nature of politics. The presidency of Barack Obama has seen an unthinkable amount of resistance from Republicans, even though they agree with some of what he's done and much of his policies have widespread support. The Tea Party movement has arisen, calling for a farther turn to the right. It's hard to take a center or center-left position when one party has a significant amount of moderates and the other is unapologetically on the far-right, with very few moderates. Such an unwillingness to compromise and deal in a responsible fashion with the other party has led to a pushing of the political spectrum to the Right, even though ordinary people's views for the most part have become more liberal.

There are, of course, the plutocratic reasons - huge corporations paying millions and billions of dollars, funding a vast network of right-wing think tanks and spending on propaganda campaigns to get right-wing Republicans elected - which steer political discourse far to the right (and have the added benefit of enacting policies that directly affect how much money the plutocrats make/are allowed to keep).

An effect of this plutocracy has been to make "liberal" an ugly word, so people don't call themselves that even if they hold liberal views. The center-right has become increasingly uncompromising and deranged, as evinced by the apoplectic raging of Rush Limbaugh, the insane conspiratorial ramblings of Glenn Beck, or the incomprehensible raving of Sarah Palin. The hegemony of the two major parties is reinforced, creating a system in which they must take part rather than reform.

The result is that the government has increasingly become more for the plutocrats than for the people, and only a monumental grassroots campaign to change things will be able to solve America's coming economic, political, and social crises. Publicly-financed elections, a switch to proportional representation and a multi-party system, and the abolishment of the electoral college are needed, necessary steps to help make up the democracy deficit in America. The country needs and deserves a well-functioning government that reflects the true will and desires of the American people.

Without some kind of mass grassroots social movement, it appears that Lincoln's impassioned declaration that "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth" will go unfulfilled.

Sherman's March to the Sea

Without mincing words, the Civil War was fought in order to end the abominable practice of slavery by white racists in the South whose proclamations for "states' rights" ultimately signified their desire to maintain the oppression of millions of people. Without the Civil War - when millions of Americans fought and hundreds of thousands died - the morally reprehensible practice of slavery would have continued for much longer.

War is a part of humanity than involves the loss of life, cruelty, atrocities, and destruction for all involved. What sometimes make such action tolerable is when its purpose is justified, as in the attempt to eradicate slavery and defeat a rebellion founded upon keeping men, women, and children in chains.

While Ulysses S. Grant deservedly gets credit for winning the war for the North, his victory would not have been possible without the efforts of one William Tecumseh Sherman.

Having served under Grant at bloody battles such as Shiloh and Vicksburg, Sherman received command of Union armies in the western theater in early 1864, when the tide of the war had turned and the Confederacy was reeling. It was then up to the friends Grant and Sherman to break the back of the rebels, and that they did with aplomb (at the cost of thousands of lives and damage to the landscape).

Sherman took three armies and 100,000 men and invaded Georgia. In a move that was taken as incredibly foolish by those around him at the time, Sherman cut himself off from his supply lines and communications with superiors. Despite misgivings, Grant and President Lincoln acquiesced to his decision to go it alone. The leash untethered, Sherman let loose a side of war on the South the Confederacy had not seen coming.

His armies lived off the land, taking whatever food or property they wanted from the farms and towns they came across. Sherman's armies targeted railroad tracks, often tying them around trees in what came to be called "Sherman's neckties". Leaving behind a "scorched earth" path of destruction, Sherman's soldiers brought the war to the South in such a way as to cripple their psychological and military means of continuing the war.

Coming upon Atlanta, Georgia, in September, 1864, Sherman ordered all the inhabitants to leave the city, saying famously:


You cannot qualify war in harsher terms than I. War is cruelty, and cannot refine it; and those who brought war into our country deserve all the curses and maledictions a people can pour out.

Sherman later ordered the burning of all official government and military buildings, though private homes were also damaged. The capture of Atlanta helped to ensure the reelection of Abraham Lincoln, giving further resolve to the Union effort to secure victory.

Thus began Sherman's March to the Sea, a 300-mile journey to the port city of Savannah. Leaving Atlanta on November 15, the Union forces reached Georgia's second city after only minor actions by mid-December. They continued their tactics of total war along the way, destroying the countryside and crippling transportation routes. After connecting with several ships of the U.S. Navy, Sherman's forces entered the cities without a battle on December 20, allowing the General to give the President the city as a Christmas gift.

His March to the Sea a resounding success, and with much of the South lying in ruins in his wake, Sherman was then able to turn and march through the Carolinas to meet up with General Grant in Virginia and finish the war. The resolve and means to continue fighting for the Confederacy in tatters as a result of his actions, General Sherman marched another 400 miles in rapid time, helping to end the war only a few months later.

Though not himself particularly abolitionist, Sherman's actions directly led to slaves being freed and mentally and physically destroyed the South's ability to wage war. By being so ruthless in his march through the Southern heartland, Sherman demonstrated the cost of war to the Confederacy. His efforts allowed President Lincoln to be reelected, helped dismantle the rebellious Southern states, and in the process aided the fight to end the terrible practice of slavery.

Why the Bills Should Stay in Buffalo

There's been a lot of talk, both before and after the Buffalo Bills signed a deal with Ted Rogers to play a series of home games at the Skydome, about the NFL team moving to Toronto. The deal appears to be a win-win for both sides; the Bills will receive about $78 million, a huge sum for a financially-struggling team in a small market, over five years to play a handful of regular-season and preseason games north of the border. With Bills owner Ralph Wilson planning to put the team up for sale when he either gets too old or dies (he is 92 years old), it seems pretty obvious that the team will move to Toronto and become the first non-American NFL franchise.

Except it's not obvious at all and shouldn't happen.

Some people seem to believe that Toronto just "deserves" a team, a rather absurd notion. Why exactly does Toronto deserve an NFL team? Surely, Los Angeles has more of a right to one than Toronto anyway? Proponents cite that Toronto has a history of supporting big American major league teams - like the Raptors and Blue Jays. While this is true, it's only true to a certain extent, the point being that, like most other cities, Toronto only really gets behind their teams when they're winning (the exception being hockey, of course). When the Jays were winning World Series and reaching the playoffs in the 90s, their attendance skyrocketed. Today they're doing pretty decently, but not great, and talk has begun of whether they should continue to stay in Toronto.

This kind of fairweather support is enough to generate income for teams in the NBA and MLB, but NFL fans tend to sell-out their stadiums every week even if the team is terrible. NFL higher-ups wouldn't want a Toronto franchise to reflect poorly upon them with lots of empty seats - they already have that in Buffalo. Some of the early games in Toronto also haven't seemed to display any kind of fervent desire to have the NFL in the city, either. If the Bills moved, as well, Toronto would be inheriting a terrible team that is famous for being terrible - they famously lost 4 Super Bowls in a row in the 90s and haven't made the playoffs in years. Would fans show up for that?

As well, the Skydome, while seating over 50,000, would immediately be the smallest stadium in the league. A Toronto NFL team would have to build a bigger, expensive stadium that Rogers may be unwilling to do, having already shelled out the tens of millions required to buy the franchise and paid the $78 million to get the team to play a few games in Toronto. What if the Canadian dollar's worth goes down against the U.S. dollar? Salaries will be much more expensive, on top of the other expenses required to maintain a competitive team. In a small stadium and a probably terrible team, would Toronto have the finances to have a viable NFL team?

For the television market, which is a massive source of money for the NFL, ratings for the CFL - supposedly a vastly inferior product - have exploded and consistently get higher ratings in Canada than for NFL games. If the NFL were going to expand, it would have to compete with a stronger CFL for the football market, something which it doesn't really have in the U.S.

It's not like Toronto is filled to the brim with would-be football fans just dying to get any football team in town, either. Toronto is home to the CFL's Toronto Argonauts, one of the oldest professional clubs in North America and the most successful sports team by far in Toronto with 15 Grey Cups. With a storied franchise whose history is long and successful, and more trophies than they can shake a stick at, the Argonauts should be raking in the dough from all those rabid Toronto football fans. Except the Argonauts have faced financial difficulty as a result of low attendance and struggle to maintain relevance in an alleged"crowded Toronto sports scene". Clearly, football fans in Toronto are fewer than need to be for an NFL team, otherwise they would be packing the Skydome for Argonauts games. It's also unclear what would happen to the Argonauts should Toronto receive an NFL team, something that no one in Toronto apparently cares about.

Unless there's another reason why Toronto seems to want an NFL team but doesn't care to support its own CFL team. The answer would appear to be, as with many other Toronto-related issues, a question of reputation. Toronto wants to be counted among the big, awesome American cities like New York and Chicago. They want to be included in conversations about the big-time NFL in cities all over America (maybe even the world?!). They want "Toronto" to be splayed across the New York Times, discussed on ESPN. According to this view, the CFL and Canada are merely holding back the city from gaining its rightful place among the elite (whatever that is) in the rest of North America, a.k.a. the U.S.

For financial, practical, and historical reasons this should not happen. The Bills are a deeply-cared about part of the Buffalo community. Yes, they may be perpetual losers, but they are Buffalo's perpetual losers, damn it. The city has suffered enough hardship over the years, and is currently a shadow of its former self. Having heartbreaking sports teams is the only thing that makes the city not feel so crappy about being so crappy. To take that away just doesn't make sense, for any reason or for anyone involved.

Le Populisme de Droite en Europe

Comme déja écrit, la droite est au pouvoir en Europe. Mais en particulier, le populisme de droite augment avec un taux de vitesse exemplaire.

Meme aux pays qui sont reconnus pour leurs courants fortes de la gauche; pays comme le Danemark, où le parti populaire danois, un parti qui veut réduire l'immigration et implément une politique sur l'integration plus stricte, est le troisieme plus grand; les Démocrates suédois ont récus dans le dernier élection pour la premier fois plus de 5% des votes et ont capturés 20 sièges au parlement - c'est un parti dont remarques nationaliste et contre les immigrants a resulté en leurs étant appellé des "fascistes".

Aux Pays-Bas, le Parti pour la liberté a obtenu 24 de sièges et devenu le troisieme parti du pays. Le leader du parti, Geert Wilders, s'est exprimé d'etre contre l'Islam et a donné une parole devant la mosquée proposé de New York avec des autres membres de la droite américaine. En suisse, le pays a décidé, avec l'aide et l'instigation du parti droite Union démocratique du centre, de censurer la construction de minarets - symbole de l'Islam - avec un taux de plus de 57% pour le "oui".

En Allemagne, la chancelière a declaré que "le multiculturalisme est mort". C'est que l'Allemagne n'a pas d'un parti populiste de droite qui peut répresenter leurs vues, le parti "Die Freiheit" (la liberté) a eu formé, qui veut s'agir contre "l'ideologie totalitaire de l'Islam" et l'union européen.

L'accroissement des partis populistes en Europe n'est pas suprenant. Pour un continent qui était depuis des plusieurs siecles le plupart chrétien et blanc, pour recevoir dans un laps de temps si bref des nombres d'immigrants qui viennent de pays non-chrétiens ou qui sont minorités visibles, ca c'était toujours voir des problemes culturelles. De plus, des nombres de ces pays européens n'avait pas d'une politique spécial pour le sujet de l'immigration. C'est une mélange que peut garantir le conflit.

Le conflit comme le recevoir de plus partisans pour le taliban. Comme des minorités qui craindre de vivre dans leurs pays ou ne veut pas s'intégrer. Comme ayant pour resultat de signifie que les citoyens ne veut pas avoir des immigrants ou des peuples qui ne sont pas commes leurs-meme. La France a déja vu les violences urbaines. C'est la intolérance, peut-etre meme le racisme. Mais aussi l'inexpérience avec des cultures ou des gens différents.


Alors ce que c'est une opportunité pour addresser le sujet d'immigration, intégration, et multiculturalisme; pour developper des politiques qui peuvent aider ces immigrants et les citoyens natives de vivre ensemble et travailler ensemble.